In:Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peng Wu
[Argumentation in Context 12] 2017
► pp. 335–359
Chapter 18Analysing multimodal argumentation within the pragma-dialectical framework
Strategic manoeuvring in the front covers of The Economist
Published online: 12 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.18tse
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.18tse
Abstract
In this chapter, I argue that the theoretical assumptions and concrete analytical concepts of Pragma-dialectics constitute a fertile ground for the study of visual and multimodal argumentation. This is primarily because the pragma-dialectical theory takes a procedural, pragmatic and functional approach to the study of argumentation which allows it to incorporate insights from the growing field of multimodal discourse analysis. Within the pragma-dialectical approach, next to the evidentiary function of visual images other argumentative functions can be researched, such as the use of images to advance a standpoint, to criticize, to explain and to draw attention to various aspects of the argumentative procedure. It is also argued that Pragma-dialectics can accommodate insights from multimodal analysis in order to account for the meaning conveyed not only by the verbal and visual content but also by the verbal and visual style as well as by the interplay of the various semiotic modes. Moreover, its focus on the institutional constraints and possibilities of a variety of communicative practices makes it possible not only to consider the context in a systematic way in order to reconstruct multimodal argumentative discourse but also to describe specific argumentative activity types which employ images and text. As a case in point, I analyse a series of front covers from The Economist in order to show how the interplay of image and text amounts to strategic manoeuvring.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.What can Pragma-Dialectics contribute to the study of multimodal argumentation?
- 3. How to accommodate multimodal argumentation within Pragma-Dialectics?
- 4. Analysing strategic manoeuvring in multimodal argumentative discourses
- 5. The front covers of The Economist: a multimodal argumentative genre
- 6.Concluding remarks
Acknowledgment Notes References
References (62)
Bateman, J. (2014). Text and image. A critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. London: Routledge.
Birdsell, D. S., & Groarke, L. (1996). Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 1–10.
Blair, A. J. (2004). The rhetoric of visual arguments. In C. A. Hill, & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 41–62). Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Dahl, J. M. R. (2015). Visual argumentation in political advertising: A context-oriented perspective. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4, 286–298.
Dove, I. J. (2012). On images as evidence and arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 223–238). Amsterdam: Springer.
(2013). Visual arguments and meta-arguments. In D. Mohammed, & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013 (pp. 1–15). Ontario: OSSA.
Eckstein, J. (forthcoming). Radiolab’s sound strategic maneuvers. Argumentation, published online 23 November 2016, .
Edwards, J. L., & Winkler, C. K. (1997). Representative form and the visual ideograph: The Iwo Jima image in editorial cartoons. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 83, 289–310.
Feteris, E. T. (2013). The use of allusions to literary and cultural sources in argumentation in political cartoons. In H. van Belle, P. Gillaerts, B. van Gorp, D. van de Mieroop, & K. Rutten (Eds.), Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world (pp. 415–428). Leiden: LUP.
Feteris, E. T., Groarke, L., & Plug, H. J. (2011). Strategic maneuvering with visual arguments in political cartoons: A pragma-dialectical analysis of the use of topoi that are based on common cultural heritage. In E. T. Feteris, B. Garssen, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 59–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Godden, D. (2017). On the norms of visual argument: A case for normative non-revisionism. Argumentation, 31, 395–431.
(2002). Toward a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 137–151). Amsterdam: Sic Sat/ Virginia: Vale Press, Newport News.
(2015). Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter? Argumentation, 29, 133–155.
(2017). Editorial cartoons and ART: Arguing with Pinocchio. In A. Tseronis, & C. Forceville (Eds.) Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres. (pp. 81–110) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Groarke, L., Palczewski, C. H., & Godden, D. (2016). Navigating the visual turn in argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52, 217–235.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Horn, R. E. (1998). Visual language. Global communication for the 21st century. Macro VU Incorporated.
Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2014). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Johnson, R. (2003). Why visual arguments aren’t arguments. In A. J. Blair, D. Farr, H. Hansen, R. Johnson, & C. Tindale (Eds.), Informal logic @25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference (pp. 1–13). Ontario: OSSA.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2012). Pictorial argumentation in advertising: Visual tropes and figures as a way of creating visual argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 239–256). Dordrecht: Springer.
(2015a). The rhetoric of thick representation: How pictures render the importance and strength of an argument salient. Argumentation, 29, 197–215.
(2016). Symbolic condensation and thick representation in visual and multimodal communication. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52, 265–280.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images. The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Lake, R. A., & Pickering, B. A. (1998). Argumentation, the visual, and the possibility of refutation: An exploration. Argumentation, 12, 79–93.
Plug, H. J. (2013). Manoeuvring strategically in political cartoons: Transforming visualizations of metaphors. In H. van Belle, P. Gillaerts, B. van Gorp, D. van de Mieroop, & K. Rutten (Eds.), Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world (pp. 429–440). Leiden: LUP.
Shelley, C. (2001). Aspects of visual argument: A study of the March of Progress. Informal Logic, 21, 85–96.
Tseronis, A. (2013). Argumentative functions of visuals: Beyond claiming and justifying. In D. Mohammed, & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013 (pp. 1–17). Ontario: OSSA.
(2015a). Multimodal argumentation in news magazine covers: A case study of front covers putting Greece on the spot of the European economic crisis. Discourse, Context & Media, 7, 18–27.
(2015b). Documentary film as multimodal argumentation: Arguing audio-visually about the 2008 financial crisis. In J. Wildfeuer (Ed.), Building bridges for multimodal research: International perspectives on theories and practices of multimodal analysis (pp. 327–345). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
(forthcoming a). Multimodal argumentation: Beyond the verval-visual divide. Semiotica, special issue.
(forthcoming b). Insights from Relevance Theory for determin the commitments of image-makers in arguments with multimodal allusions in the front covers of The Economist
. International Review of Pragmatics, special issue.
Tseronis, A., & Forceville, C. (2017a). Arguing against corporate claims visually and multimodally: The genre of suverisements. Multimodal Communication. Published online 13 September 2017
. . .
(Eds.). (2017b). Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tversky, B. (2005). Visuospatial reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 209–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van den Broek, J., Koetsenruijter, W., de Jong, J., & Smit, L. (2012). Visual language. Perspectives for both makers and users. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.
van den Hoven, P. (2015). Cognitive semiotics in argumentation: A theoretical exploration. Argumentation, 29, 157–176.
van den Hoven, P., & Yang, Y. (2013). The argumentative reconstruction of multimodal discourse, taking the ABC coverage of president Hu Jintao’s visit to the USA as an example. Argumentation, 27, 403–424.
van Eemeren, F. H. (1987). Argumentation studies’ five estates. In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices: Proceedings of the 5th SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 9–24). Annandale, Virginia: Speech Communication Association.
(2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2016). Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentation, 30, 1–23.
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: University of Alabama Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.) Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp.131–159). Dordrecht: Springer.
(2005). Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock, & D. Farr (Eds.), The uses of argument. Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University (pp. 75–84). Windsor: OSSA.
Cited by (14)
Cited by 14 other publications
Grzenkowicz, Maciej
Grzenkowicz, Maciej
Stöckl, Hartmut
Tseronis, Assimakis, Ramy Younis & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2024. A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:2 ► pp. 292 ff.
Allani, Samira & Silvia Molina-Plaza
Serafis, Dimitris & Assimakis Tseronis
Serafis, Dimitris, Sara Greco, Chiara Pollaroli & Chiara Jermini-Martinez Soria
van Eemeren, Frans H.
Tseronis, Assimakis
Tseronis, Assimakis
Tseronis, Assimakis & Charles Forceville
2017. Argumentation and rhetoric in visual and multimodal communication. In Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres [Argumentation in Context, 14], ► pp. 1 ff.
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
